Michael Moore doesn’t hate America, just Bush

“That’s why we’re smiling all the time,” he told a rapturous throng in Munich. “You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How’s it going?’ We’ve got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren’t loaded down.”

“You’re stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.” In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: “It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton.”

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, “Should such an ignorant people lead the world?” Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: “Don’t go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way.”

His brain contains more fat than he does. Where does he get off??!! I sure don’t see him turning up his pignose at our shit-eating grinning American dollars!!
He is a traitor to the US on a scale far worse than Jonathan Pollard {whom I also don’t care for}. At least Pollard sold the US out – outright. Moore does it piecemeal, through lies and some lame attempt at pseudo patriotism.
At least you know he’ll drop dead of heart attack any second now.
And for some clarity I’d certainly read this. So well put.

Y’all need to relax. Although…the more apopletic you get about Michael Moore, the less focus there is on John Kerry…hey, you know I think Michael Moore is working on another documentary about Bush… Go get ‘im!

Moore forgets that nearly every nation exports misery and pain to peoples across the world, and in the long run America does more good than harm. Moore also speaks of an ignorant people leading the world. Does he have a better suggession?
However, ken, I must say, I know how you feel. I get that awful feling every time Ann Coulter opens her mouth.

Posted by: pursuitspeed at June 29, 2004 at 5:29 pm

I agree with Hitchens, that Moore will say whatever gets him applouse.
As for the focus on Michael Moore – I don’t think it will necessarily help Kerry. Moore is much more representative of the anti-Bush crowd than Kerry. He is what America wants to be. The whole world loves him and hates Bush – so let’s forget about Bush, and put Michael on the pedestal – and let’s put him in the spotlight. Michael is our hero. Let’s give him more attention. He will swallow it.

To Moore’s credit, there’s less of the out-and-out anti-Americanism in F-9/11, as opposed to “Bowling For Columbine” (which essentially included that the problem with America is all those damn Americans).
We know from these quotes (if the translations are all accurate, though I haven’t heard Moore deny it), that that’s bullshit. But the latest movie pretty much confined its hate to Bush and Co.

Dawn, you know Kerry is so wishy-washy and lightweight that if he stays out of the spotlight he may actually win this thing. Focusing on Moore is actually really smart. He’s the spokesman for the Democrats these days and he can rile up the right enough to get off their asses and vote, something I’m not sure Kerry can do.

Um…because he’s a liar?
How can you claim that he’s not a spokesman for the Democrats when Mario Cuomo is his lobbyist?
When these people:Packing the Uptown Theater to the rafters, about 800 people — including South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, Florida Senator Bob Graham, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, to name just a few of the prominent Democrats in attendance — took in Moore’s two-plus hours of Bush-bashing, applauding throughout and giving Moore a standing ovation when it was over.
are who gets invited to the premiere?
When (from the same link) the Chairman of the DNC gives the film and director this ringing endorsement:“I think anyone who sees this movie will come out en masse to make sure John Kerry is elected president this November,” McAuliffe said after the premiere. “Credit to Michael Moore for taking the time to put this together.”
When (from the same piece) one of Moore’s associates explains:the filmmaker is “the point in the spear for the Democratic party. … He’s willing to be at the leading edge, pushing these thoughts and ideas that have an impact on Bush and relieving Kerry from having to deliver that hard negative that has repercussions.”
Hat Tip: Poliblogger
It seems to me that anyone who claims that Moore isn’t a spokesman for the Democratic Party is either lying or being willfully obtuse.

Oh Good God, would you get off Michael Moore’s back already? The more you attack his film, the more press he gets. You’re just adding to his already deep pockets.
As for Moore’s registration as a democrat, did anyone (other than Al Franken) go nuts on Bill O’Reilly for claiming that he was an independent despite being registered as a republican in Nassau County, NY? Like Moore, he also registered in the early 90s, and as everyone knows, it doesn’t obligate either person to vote along party lines in the voting booth.

Oh, I agree that I don’t want Moore getting any more press. I just don’t think commenting on a blog constitutes “press.” Karol ain’t that huge…yet.
As far as Bill O’Reilly goes, if anything, that’s more despicible than Moore’s lies. I don’t read the Post, so this is the first I’ve heard of it. Haven’t watched O’Reilly in years, but I distinctly remember him saying he was a “registered Independant.” At least with Moore, you know he’s gonna be on the far left of every issue. Bill called himself a “registered independant” while holding a bunch of non-Republican positions. I took him at his word that he wasn’t just playing the role of an independant for the viewers by adopting anti-deathpenalty, anti-SUV views. I see no more reason to do that now.
Always thought he was a blowhard, but at least an honest one.

I think Michael Moore is reactionary cog in the entertainment industry’s vast machine. It’s that simple. While I would like to see more evidence put forward from him to support his theories, a lack of evidence does not make his theories immediately untrue; they’re just theories afterall. When you think about it, he’s done little more than ask if a series of events are coincidences or if they are more deliberate. I dont see the harm in asking questions. It’s democracy at work.
Furthermore, I think people are seriously overestimating the pull this movie will have on voters. So what if a bunch of the members from the Democratic party went to see the premier in DC? It doesn’t mean they align with him or agree with everything he has to say. It’s tantamount to some member of the Democratic party listening to Rush Limbaugh’s show; you cant say that they are aligned with Rush just for listening to his program. It could mean nothing more that they want to consider a different perspective, even if they ultimately disagree.